Lexical Nature of Functional Projections - 早稲田大学 · Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Ryo Otoguro Waseda University Research Seminar, ... Table 6: Paradigms of European

Lexical Nature of Functional Projections

Ryo Otoguro

Waseda University

Research Seminar, University of Essex, 14 March 2014

Ryo Otoguro (Waseda U) Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Essex 1 / 53

Variations of finite verb placement and movement Germanic and Romance clause structures

Main clause V2

(1) a. MaxM.

shiktsends

nitnot

avekaway

demthe

brif.letter

‘Max doesn’t mail the letter.’ (Yiddish)b. Jón

J.keyptibought

ekkinot

bókina.the.book

‘John didn’t buy the book.’ (Icelandic)c. Peter

P.drikkerdrinks

ofteoften

kaffe.coffee

‘Peter often drinks coffee.’ (Danish)d. Johan

J.köptebought

intenot

boken.the.book

‘John didn’t read the book.’ (Swedish)(cf. Rohrbacher 1999:12)



Embedded clause

(2) a. . . . aðthat

JónJ.

borðareats

oftoften

tómata.tomatoes

‘. . . that John often eats tomatoes.’b. *. . . að Jón oft borðar tómata. (Icelandic)c. . . . az

thatJonasJ.

esteats

oftoften

pomidorn.tomatoes

d. *. . . az Jonas oft est pomidorn. (Yiddish)

(3) a. . . . atthat

JohanJ.

ofteoften

spisereats

tomater.tomatoes

b. *. . . at Johan spiser ofte tomater. (Danish)c. . . . at

thatJónJ.

oftaoften

etureats

tomatir.tomatoes

d. *. . . at Jón etur ofta tomatir. (Faroese) (Vikner 1997:189)



V-to-C

(4) CP

DP

Peter

C′

C

drikkeri

IP

I′

I

ti

VP

Adv

ofte

VP

V

ti

DP

kafeeRyo Otoguro (Waseda U) Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Essex 4 / 53


(5) a. Dosthe

bukhbook

shiksend

ikhI

avek.away

‘I mail the book.’ (Yiddish)b. Dette

thisspørsmåletquestion

skjønteunderstood

JensJ.

ikke.not

‘This question John didn’t understand.’ (Norwegian)c. Igår

yesterdayköptebought

LenaL.

ena

nynew

bok.book

‘Yesterday Lena bought a new book.’ (Swedish)(Rohrbacher 1999:12–3)



V-to-I

(6) a. JeanJ.

embrassekisses

souventoften

Marie.M.

b. *Jean souvent embrasse Marie.c. Jean

J.(ne)(neg)

mangeeats

pasnot

deof

chocolat.chocolate

d. *Jean (ne) pas mange de chocolate. (French)(Pollock 1989:367)

(7) a. Quelthat

medicodoctor

risolveràsolve.fut

completamentecompletely

ithe

tuoiyour

problemi.problems

b. Quel medico risolverà i tuoi problemi completamente.c. *Quel medico completamente risolverà i tuoi problemi.

(Italian) (Rohrbacher 1999:209)(8) a. *John kisses often Sue.

b. John often kisses Sue. (English)



(9) IP

DP

Jean

I′

I

embrassei

VP

Adv

souvent

VP

V

ti

DP

Marie

IP

DP

John

I′

I VP

Adv

often

VP

V

kisses

DP

Sue

(cf. Emonds 1978, Pollock 1989)



(10)

CP

. . . C′

C

að

IP

DP

Jón

I′

I

borðari

VP

Adv

oft

VP

V

ti

DP

tómata

CP

. . . C′

C

at

IP

DP

Johan

I′

I VP

Adv

ofte

VP

V

spiser

DP

tomater



V-to-I No V-to-IV-to-C Icelandic, Yiddish Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, . . .No V-to-C French, Italian English

Table 1: Availability of V-to-I and V-to-C (cf. Koeneman 2010:213)


Functional Projections in LFG

Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG; Kaplan & Bresnan 1982, Bresnan2001, Dalrymple 2001, Falk 2001, Kroeger 2004):

Monostratal, i.e. no derivational processes like movement positedParallel structures, e.g. c(onstituent)-structure,f(unctional)-structureLexically driven



(11) a. Lexical entries:John N (↑ pred) = ‘John’

(↑ num) = sg(↑ pers) = 3

Sue N (↑ pred) = ‘Sue’(↑ num) = sg(↑ pers) = 3

kissed V (↑ pred) = ‘kiss〈subj,obj〉’(↑ tense) = past

often Adv (↑ pred) = ‘often’



IP

(↑ subj) = ↓DP

John

↑= ↓

I′

↑= ↓

VP

↓ ∈ (↑ adj)Adv

often

↑= ↓

V

kissed

(↑ obj) = ↓DP

Sue

pred ‘kiss〈subj,obj〉’tense past

subj

pred ‘John’num sg

pers 3

obj

pred ‘Sue’num sg

pers 3

adj

{

[

pred ‘often’]

}



(12) Economy of Expression:All syntactic phrase structure nodes are optional and are notused unless required by independent principles. (Bresnan2001:92)



(13) SwedishIP

NP

Daniel

I′

I

ätereats

VP

V′

NP

kakorcookies

CP

NP

Bokenthe.book

C′

C

lästeread

IP

NP

hanhe

(Toivonen 2003:12; cf. Sells 2001)Ryo Otoguro (Waseda U) Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Essex 14 / 53


(14) Clause spine (Sells 2001; cf. Grimshaw’s (2003) ExtendedProjection):

Base-generation in lexical/functional headInformation flow from V, I, C to the samefunctional-structure



(15) CP

↑= ↓

C′

↑= ↓

C↑= ↓

IP

↑= ↓

I′

↑= ↓

I↑= ↓

VP

↑= ↓

V

tense . . .asp . . .. . .


Proposal Rich agreement morphology

(16) Rich Agreement HypothesisRich agreement morphology→ V-to-I movement(Kosmeijer 1986, Rohrbacher 1999, Koeneman & Zeijlstra 2010,2012)


Proposal Rich agreement morphology

Yiddish loyf-n ‘run’ Icelandic segj-a ‘say’ Danish høre ‘hear’Sg Pl Sg Pl Sg Pl

1 loyf loyf-n segi segj-um hør-te hør-te2 loyf-st loyf-t segi-r seg-ið hør-te hør-te3 loyf-t loyf-n segi-r segj-a hør-te hør-te

Table 2: Yiddish, Icelandic and Danish verb paradigms


Proposal Defining richness

(17) 1st: (↑ pers 1) = +(↑ pers 2) = −

2nd: (↑ pers 1) = −(↑ pers 2) = +

3rd: (↑ pers 1) = −(↑ pers 2) = −

cf. (↑ pers) = 1(↑ pers) = 2(↑ pers) = 3


Proposal Defining richness

Lexical items are paradigmatically organised, so that inflectionalforms of the same lexeme compete with each other and the mostnarrowly specified entry wins (Paninian Principle; Elsewherecondition) (Andrews 1982, 1990, Sadler & Spencer 2001, Otoguro2006, forthcoming)When a language exhibits full paradigmatic person contrasts, i.e.[+1, −2] and [−1, +2], finite verbs are qualified as Infl.


Proposal Finite verbs in functional heads

Germanic

(18) Icelandic segja ‘say’a. segi (↑ subj pers 1) =c +

(↑ subj pers 2) =c −

(↑ subj num) =c sg

(↑ tense) = pres

b. segir (↑ subj pers 1) =c −


(↑ tense) = pres

c. segjum (↑ subj pers 1) =c +


(↑ subj num) =c pl

(↑ tense) = pres

d. segið (↑ subj pers 1) =c −

(↑ subj pers 2) =c +


(↑ tense) = pres

e. segia (↑ subj pers 1) =c −



(↑ tense) = pres



(19) Yiddish loyfn ‘run’a. loyf (↑ subj pers 1) =c +



(↑ tense) = pres

b. loyfst (↑ subj pers 1) =c −



(↑ tense) = pres

c. loyft (↑ subj pers 1) =c −

(↑ tense) = pres

d. loyfn (↑ subj pers 2) =c −


(↑ tense) = pres



Romance

Italian parlare ‘speak’Sg Pl

1 parl-o parl-iamo2 parl-i parl-ate3 parl-a parl-ano

Table 3: Italian verb paradigm (Rohrbacher 1999:206)



(20) Italian parlare ‘speak’a. parlo ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)

(↑ subj pers 1) = +(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = pres

b. parli ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = +(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = pres

c. parla ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = pres

d. parliamo ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = +(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres

e. parlate ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = +(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres

f. parlano ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres



French parl-er [e]‘speak’Sg Pl

1 parl-e [∅] parl-e [∅] (parl-ons [o])2 parl-es [∅] parl-ez [e]3 parl-e [∅] parl-ent [∅]

Table 4: French verb paradigm



subject clitics subject pronounsSg Pl Sg Pl

1 je on moi nous2 tu vous toi vous3 M il ils lui eux

F elle elles elle elles

Table 5: French subject clitics and pronouns



(21) a. Luihe

il3.sg

mange.eats

‘He is eating.’b. Jean

J.il3.sg

mange.eats

‘John is eating.’ (Rohrbacher 1999:218)



(22) French parler ‘speak’a. je parle ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)


b. tu parles ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = +(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = pres

c. il parle ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ subj gend) = m(↑ tense) = pres

d. elle parle ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ subj gend) = f(↑ tense) = pres

. . .


Dialectal variations

EP Colloquial BPSg Pl Sg Pl

1 falo falamos falo fala2 falas falais fala falam3 fala falam fala falam

Table 6: Paradigms of European and Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese verbfalar ‘speak’

(Roberts 2007:338)



(23) EP falar ‘speak’a. falo ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)


b. falas ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = +(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = pres

c. fala ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = pres

d. falamos ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = +(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres

e. falais ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = +(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres

f. falam ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres



(24) BP falar ‘speak’a. falo ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)


b. fala ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ tense) = pres

c. falam ((↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’)(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = pres



(25) a. Tu2.sg

nãonot

me1.sg.acc

vaisgoes

esquecer.forget

‘You will not forget me.’ (EP)b. Você

2.sgvaigoes

me1.sg.acc

esquecer.forget

‘You will forget me.’ (BP)



(26) a. . . . embora. . . although

euI

saibaknow

quethat

a3.sg.f.acc

jáalready

tenshave

emin

grandebig

dose.position

‘. . . although I know that you already have tons of it(=patience).’ (EP)

b. . . . acho. . . think

quethat

elashe

lho3.pl.dat-3.sg.m.acc

aindayet

nãonot

disse.told

‘. . . I think that s/he hasn’t told it to him/her/them yet.’ (EP)(27) a. O

theIvoIvo

jáalready

te2.sg.acc

chamou.called

‘Ivo has already called you.’ (BP)b. Você

2.sgjáalready

me1.sg.acc

perguntou?asked

‘Have you already asked me?’ (BP)(Luís & Otoguro 2012)



Hallingmålet (Norway) Älvdalsmålet (Sweden)høyræ ‘hear’ höra ‘hear’

Sg Pl Sg Pl1 høyr-e høyr-æ hör-er hör-um2 høyr-e høyr-æ hör-er hör-ir3 høyr-e høyr-æ hör-er hör-a

Table 7: Hallingmålet and Älvdalsmålet verb paradigms (Vikner 1997:193)



(28) Hallingmålet høyræ ‘hear’a. høyre (↑ subj num) =c sg

(↑ tense) = pres

b. høyræ (↑ subj num) =c pl

(↑ tense) = pres



(29) Älvdalsmålet höra ‘hear’a. hörer (↑ subj num) =c sg

(↑ tense) = pres

b. hörum (↑ subj pers 1) =c +



(↑ tense) = presc. hörir (↑ subj pers 1) =c −



(↑ tense) = pres

d. höra (↑ subj pers 1) =c −



(↑ tense) = pres



(30) a. *. . . atthat

mewe

kjøpæbuy

ikkjenot

bokje.the.book

b. . . . atthat

mewe

ikkjenot

kjøpæbuy

bokje.the.book (Hallingmålet)

(31) a. Babut

fo ðyæbecause

atthat

igI

wildwanted

intnot

fyfollow

om.him

‘Just because we didn’t want to follow him.’b. Ig

Iiam

redafraid

anhe

kumbcomes

inte.not (Älvdalsmålet)

(Rohrbacher 1999:118; Bobaljik 2002:136–7)



(32) Heit

vawas

bragood

etthat

anhe

tsöfftbought

intnot

bootsen.the.book

‘It was good that he didn’t buy the book.’ (Kronoby Swedish)

(33) . . . før detbecause

atthat

hanhe

NilsenN.

komcame

ikkje.not

‘. . . because Nilsen didn’t come.’ (Tromsø Norwegian)(Rohrbacher 1999:118; Bobaljik 2002:139)


Conclusion

Conclusion

The inflected forms constitute a paradigm and their featurespecifications are determined in relation to the other members ofthe paradigm.The overt morphological encoding of person features affects thelanguage’s categorical organisation of lexical items, namely Infl isa manifestation of person markings of finite verbs.The framework is potentially extended to other categorialdomains involving different feature encoding, such as C or morefine-grained functional heads.


Celtic V1 clause structure

(34) a. Chonaicsee.past

SeánJohn

anthe

madra.dog

‘John saw the dog.’ (Irish)b. Chunnaic

see.pastmiI

IainJohn

an dé.yesterday

‘I saw John yesterday.’ (Scottish Gaelic)c. Gwelodd

see.pastythe

bachgenboy

ythe

dyn.man

‘The boy saw the man.’ (Welsh) (Hendrick 2000:14)



(35) CP

C

gweloddi

IP

DP

y bachgen

I′

I

ti

VP

V

ti

DP

y dyn



(36) a. Ceapaimthink.pres.1.sg

gothat

bhfacasee.past

séhe

anthe

madra.dog

‘I think that he saw the dog.’ (Irish; Bobaljik & Carnie1996:227)

b. Tybedwonder.1.sg

aprt

geithwill.get

hishe

ddiwrnodday

rhyddfree

wythnosweek

nesa.next‘I wonder if she’ll get a free day next week.’ (Welsh; Roberts2005:20)



(37) IP

I

gweloddi

VP

DP

y bachgen

V′

V

ti

DP

y dyn



(38) a. *Cuireannput.past

go minicoften

nathe

micstudents

léinnin

isteachon

arjobs

phostanna.

‘The students often apply for jobs.’ (Irish; McCloskey1991:260)

b. Maebe.pres.3.sg

’rthe

bwsbus

eisoesalready

wediperf

gadael.leave.inf

‘The bus has already left.’ (Welsh; Borsley et al. 2007:50)



(39) AgrSP

AgrS

gweloddi

TP

DP

y bachgen

T′

T

ti

VP

V

ti

DP

y dyn



V-to-I No V-to-IV-to-C Icelandic, Yiddish Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, . . .No V-to-C French, Italian English

Irish, Welsh, . . .

Table 8: Availability of V-to-I and V-to-C Revised



(40) WelshIP

I

gweloddsaw

S

NP

SiônJohn

VP

NP

ddraigdragon

(Bresnan 2001:130)



Welsh cerdded ‘walk’Future Past Conditional

1Sg cerdda(f) cerddais cerddwn2Sg cerddi cerddaist cerddet3Sg cerddiff cerddodd cerddai1Pl cerddwn cerddon cerdden2Pl cerddwch cerddoch cerddech3Pl cerddan cerddon cerdden

Table 9: Welsh verb paradigm (Borsley et al. 2007:9)



(41) a. Gweloddsee.past.3.sg

e/hihe/she

‘He/she saw.’b. Gwelon

see.past.3.plnhw.they

‘They saw.’

(42) a. Gweloddsee.past.3.sg

ythe

bachgen/bechgynboy/boys

ddraig.dragon

‘The boy/boys saw a dragon.’b. *Gwelon

see.past.3.plythe

bechgynboys

ddraig.dragon

‘The boys saw a dragon.’



(43) Welsh cerdded ‘walk’a. cerdddais (↑ subj pred) =c ‘pro’




(↑ tense) = past

b. cerddaist (↑ subj pred) =c ‘pro’(↑ subj pers 1) =c −



(↑ tense) = past

c. cerddodd (↑ tense) = past

d. cerddon (↑ subj pred) =c ‘pro’(↑ subj pers 1) =c +



(↑ tense) = past

e. cerddoch (↑ subj pred) =c ‘pro’(↑ subj pers 1) =c −


(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = past

f. cerddon (↑ subj pred) =c ‘pro’(↑ subj pers 1) =c −


(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = past



Irish cuir ‘put’Sg Pl

1 chuirfinn chuirfimis2 chuirfeá chuirfeadh sibh3 chuirfeadh sé (M)/sí (F) chuirfeadh siad

Table 10: Irish conditional verb paradigm (Andrews 1990:509)



(44) a. Chuirfinnput.cond.1.sg

(*mé)I

isteachin

aron

anthe

phostjob

sin.that

‘I would apply for that job.’b. Chuirfimis

put.cond.1.pl(*muid)we

isteachin

aron

anthe

phostjob

sin.that

‘We would apply for that job.’c. Chuirfeadh

put.condnathe

léachtóirílecturers

uiligall

isteachin

aron

anthe

phostjob

sin.that

‘All the lecturers would apply for that job.’d. *Churifeadh

put.condisteachin

aron

anthe

phostjob

sin.that



(45) Irish cuir ‘put’a. chuirfinn (↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’

(↑ subj pers 1) = +(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = cond

b. chuirfeá (↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’(↑ subj pers 1) = −(↑ subj pers 2) = +(↑ subj num) = sg(↑ tense) = cond

c. chuirfimis (↑ subj pred) = ‘pro’(↑ subj pers 1) = +(↑ subj pers 2) = −(↑ subj num) = pl(↑ tense) = cond

d. chuirfeadh (↑ tense) = condRyo Otoguro (Waseda U) Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Essex 53 / 53

References

Andrews, A. D. (1982). The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. InBresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 427–503.

Andrews, A. D. (1990). Unification and morphological blocking. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory 8. 507–557.

Bobaljik, J. D. (2002). Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology doesnot drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6. 129–167.

Bobaljik, J. D. & Carnie, A. (1996). A minimalist approach to some problemsof Irish word order. In Borsley, R. D. & Roberts, I. (eds.), The syntax of theCeltic languages: A comparative perspective, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 223–240.

Borsley, R. D., Tallerman, M. & Willis, D. (2007). The syntax of Welsh.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar, vol. 34 of Syntax and

Semantics. San Diego: Academic Press.Emonds, J. E. (1978). The verbal complex of V′–V in French. Linguistic Inquiry

9. 151–175.Falk, Y. (2001). Lexical-Functional Grammar: An introduction to parallel

constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Ryo Otoguro (Waseda U) Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Essex 53 / 53

References

Grimshaw, J. (2003). Extended projection. Rutgers University.Hendrick, R. (2000). Celtic initials. In Carnie, A. & Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The

syntax of verb initial languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 13–37.Kaplan, R. M. & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal

system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mentalrepresentation of grammatical relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 173–281.

Koeneman, O. (2010). Verb movement in Germanic and Celtic languages: Aflexible approach. Lingua 120. 210–231.

Koeneman, O. & Zeijlstra, H. (2010). Resurrecting the rich agreementhypothesis: Weak isn’t strong enough. In An, D. & Kim, S. (eds.), Movementin minimalism: Proceedings of the 12th Seoul Conference on Generative Grammar.

Koeneman, O. & Zeijlstra, H. (2012). One law for the rich and another for thepoor: The Rich Agreement Hhypothesis rehabilitated. lingbuzz/001462.

Kosmeijer, W. (1986). The status of the finite inflection in Icelandic and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 26. 1–41.

Kroeger, P. R. (2004). Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luís, A. R. & Otoguro, R. (2012). Non-isomorphism and microvariation: Acomparative analysis of pronominal clitics in European and Brazilian


References

Portuguese. Paper presented at Clitics and Beyond, University ofGöttingen, Germany.

McCloskey, J. (1991). Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government inIrish. Lingua 85. 259–302.

Otoguro, R. (2006). Morphosyntax of case: A theoretical investigation of theconcept. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.

Otoguro, R. (forthcoming). Constructional paradigm in constraint-basedmorphosyntax: A case of Japanese verb inflection. Proceedings of the AnnualMeeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 38.

Pollock, Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure ofIP. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 365–424.

Roberts, I. (2005). Principles and parameters in a VSO languages. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Roberts, I. (2007). Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rohrbacher, B. W. (1999). Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising

and pro-drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Rouveret, A. (1990). X-bar theory, minimality and barrierhood in Welsh. In

Hendrick, R. (ed.), The syntax of modern Celtic languages, San Diego, CA:Academic Press. 27–79.



Sadler, L. & Spencer, A. (2001). Syntax as an exponent of morphologicalfeatures. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000,Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 71–96.

Sells, P. (2001). Structure, alignment and optimality in Swedish. Stanford, CA:CSLI Publications.

Toivonen, I. (2003). Non-projecting words: A case study of swedish particles.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vikner, S. (1997). V0-to-I0 movement and inflection fro person in all tenses. InHaegeman, L. (ed.), The new comparative syntax, London: Longman.189–213.


Documents

Lexical Nature of Functional Projections - 早稲田大学 · Lexical Nature of Functional Projections Ryo Otoguro Waseda University Research Seminar, ... Table 6: Paradigms of European